01af Posted May 2, 2011 Share #41 Posted May 2, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... with all elements and surfaces identical to those of its predecessor (according to Erwin Puts), but with the floating group. Puts is wrong here. ... the only optical change is the addition of the floating group. This misconception most likely comes from the lens cross-section diagrams published in the product brochures being apparently identical to the previous ones. But the changes to the curvatures of the lens elements are so subtle that these coarse diagrams can't reflect them. The basic design sure is the same as before but has been re-worked in many details. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 2, 2011 Posted May 2, 2011 Hi 01af, Take a look here 50 Cron (latest) sharper than 50 Lux ASPH?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bocaburger Posted May 2, 2011 Share #42 Posted May 2, 2011 Actually, in most cases, including Leica lenses, MTF charts are computer-generated. I'm sure you're correct. I was thinking about the old days. Computer generation excludes even those few variables. Thus, the results are now even harder for us mortals to reproduce in actual hands-on use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted May 2, 2011 Share #43 Posted May 2, 2011 That is a special view, and therefore worth recording, I had the impression that most people see it the other way around A lot of people say it is the other way around, but I've seen very few photos that back that up. I *have* seen examples of the pre-ASPH where it gives nice swirly, jangly bokeh in the background when it's used wide open. I've seen few shots like that from the ASPH. Two random pre-ASPH pictures I pulled up on flickr (the first I found): Boy in traditional garb - bangkok, city of angels | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Reykjavík | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Mind you, the pre-ASPH probably does this only in a few situations, and it's not bad per se, but I do find that ASPH to have exceptionally smooth bokeh almost all of the time. I never understood why people say it's harsh. Even point light sources like christmas lights show up as perfectly smooth looking discs with no bright edge. At least in my experience. Personally, I feel like the stereotype of the ASPH lenses is 'harsh bokeh'. I only have two ASPH lenses (50 and 28), but neither are harsh in my mind. Which are the ASPH lenses that actually have harsher bokeh? The 35 Summilux? The 21 and 24 Elmarits? Where does this reputation come from? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 2, 2011 Share #44 Posted May 2, 2011 That is a special view, and therefore worth recording, I had the impression that most people see it the other way around The most common cause of unruly bokeh is certainly spherical aberration. The pre-ASPH Summilux has more spherical than the ASPH. So its bokeh can be expected to be calmer. I have owned the older lens, but sold it to help finance the new one, so I have not used them in parallel. But I cannot remember that my impression after the changeover was that the new lens had less pleasant bokeh than the old one. All this is subjective, and anecdotal to boot. Take it for what it is worth. The aspherical old man from the Spherical Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 2, 2011 Share #45 Posted May 2, 2011 No disagreement with Olaf and Lars on the fact that a floating element allows a lot of corrections. In this case, the new lens shows minimal focus shift, improved close-up performance, and improved contrast. Some of that is certainly achieved by the new mount, but the only optical change is the addition of the floating group. What? Let's see. I am going to use a coding for lens layout that is inspired by the one trainspotters use for classical steam locomotives. It starts at the front lens; 1 means a single airspaced element, 2 a group of 2 cemented elements, and / (slash) shows the position of the diaphragm. The old pre-ASPH Summilux (1962–2004) is 1 - 1 - 1 / 2 - 2 The current ASPH Summilux is 1 - 2 / 1* - 2 - 2 where the asterisk marks the aspherical element (certainly another difference!) Both lenses are remote derivations of the classical double Gaussian design (1 - 2 / 2 - 1) but very different both from that and from each other. Both by the way were seminal designs: The layout of the 75mm Summilux was derived from that of the old 50mm Summilux, and that of the current 75mm Summicron from the current 50mm Summilux ASPH. The old man from the Age of the Zeiss Tessar (1 - 1 / - 2) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted May 2, 2011 Share #46 Posted May 2, 2011 Pete, to my knowledge, there was a single report of his having said that, which AFAIK Dr Karbe hasn't repeated in writing. Erwin Puts says 50/1.4 ASPH is definitely not an apochromat. See Summilux1.4/50 asph: Howard, It sounds to me like you're taking the esteemed Herr Puts's opinion over the word of the man who actually designed the lens? I'm sorry but I'm not sure that I follow that logic. (Or perhaps you doubt that he ever said it, in which case I can see why you've mentioned Puts's opinion.) Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted May 2, 2011 Share #47 Posted May 2, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) No disagreement with Olaf and Lars [...] but the only optical change is the addition of the floating group. What? Let's see. [...] Both lenses are [...] very different both from that and from each other. Lars, he was talking about the current Summilux-M 35 mm Asph (since 2010, with floating elements) and its immediate predecessor (1994 - 2009, without floating elements). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager Posted May 2, 2011 Share #48 Posted May 2, 2011 I own both lenses and love them both. Biting sharpness is a characteristic of each. That wouldn't be the criterion I would choose to distinguish them. Despite the Noct spending the last four months glued to my M9, I unreservedly acknowledge the 50 Lux ASPH as being the summa cum laude of 50 prime lenses. It is a lens the gods of old would have sold their soul for. When I'm not doing Noct studies, this lens spends more time on my camera than any other. The Cron 50 has a very different signature, arising out of a tiny bit spherical aberration. It has more than a hint of that old Leica glow of legend. And - my copy, at least - has the smoothest and most divine focus throw of all my Leica glass. Both are miracles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted May 3, 2011 Share #49 Posted May 3, 2011 Jeff, fully agree with your comments regarding the current 50 Summilux ASPH. I borrowed a mid 1980's Summicron for a while last year but didn't miss it when I gave it back. Having said that, I have a Noctilux f1.0 (circa mid 1990's) on indefinite loan and have been using it almost exclusively as my standard lens as of late. Perhaps I'm making the best of it as I know that I'll have to return it at some time, but I particularly like how it draws images of people and its subtle colouring, much more than for landscapes, architecture, etc. Have not done a direct comparison to the Summilux, but I feel comfortable as to when I want to use each of these lenses (an the weight/size of the noctilux doesn't bother me. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 3, 2011 Share #50 Posted May 3, 2011 The old pre-ASPH Summilux (1962–2004) is 1 - 1 - 1 / 2 - 2 Hi Lars This is a query so please no consequent Viking raids/pillage of our West coast. I thought it was a 1-1-1/1-2-1 Just like the CV 40mm f/1.4? Am I wrong - again? Noel P.S. They stopped production in '95 or so? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
horosu Posted May 3, 2011 Share #51 Posted May 3, 2011 Lars, As far as I know the thread applies to the ASPH version, which has (obvious) shift, not to the ASPHERICAL. Regards, Horea In this very forum. You can't have missed it. The old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 3, 2011 Share #52 Posted May 3, 2011 Hi Lars This is a query so please no consequent Viking raids/pillage of our West coast. I thought it was a 1-1-1/1-2-1 Just like the CV 40mm f/1.4? Am I wrong - again? Noel P.S. They stopped production in '95 or so? I have never actually taken one apart, but according to the info I have, the rear of the pre-ASPH (actually, v.2 1962–2004) 50mm Summilux does consist of two cemented two-groups. But the front part is correct, there is a very narrow airspace between the second and the third element. And yes of course, both the old and the new versions of the 35mm Summilux ASPH are 2 - 2 / 1 - 2 - 2. but in the new (current) lens, the entire rear cell aft of the diaphragm has been made to float. But self-evidently, such a move cannot be done without re-computing the whole package from scratch. So to say that the floating "element" is the ONLY change is not really true. With the floating part, you cannot even claim that is is the same general design. The nit-picking old man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 3, 2011 Share #53 Posted May 3, 2011 Lars, As far as I know the thread applies to the ASPH version, which has (obvious) shift, not to the ASPHERICAL. Regards, Horea Anybody here has checked this lens out for focus shift? I haven't even seen one. The intention was to produce just 2000 of them, because the Gnomes knew that a longer run would be financial self-flagellation, and I am not sure that even this batch was ever completed. If there ever was a "bragging lens" it was this one, and it is a collectors' item. Most of them do probably now reside in Japanese bank vaults. So I have not even discussed it. The old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.